Order Heard Mr. K.P. Deo, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar Jha Astik, learned counsel for the Respondent No.3. 2. The Petitioner has claimed that it is a Dharamshala running for charitable purposes and therefore is exempted from the liability of tax under the provisions of Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act. Countering the aforementioned submission and statements the Municipality (Respondent No.3) has filed a Counter Affidavit a copy where of was served upon the learned counsel for the Petitioner as early as on 13.2.2003 bringing on record Annexure-A Series which are Assessment Registers and which shows that the Dharamshala is runnning tea shops in Holding No. 22; ten shops in Holding No. 23, five shops in Holding No. 24, and ten shops in Holding No. 193. 3. In that view of the matter, whether the Petitioner is running an institution for charitable purposes or not is a matter of investigation and this Court cannot enter into the disputed question of facts. 4. Counter Affidavit further reveals that there are 16 (sixteen) rooms in Holding No. 22 and 10 (ten) shops from which Rs. 1,200/- per month is collected from the shopkeepers. It further reveals that there are 14 (fourteen) rooms for which Rs. 1,500/- per month is collected and similarly there are 8 (eight) rooms and have 5 (five) shops in Holding No. 24 for which Rs. 5,000/- per month is collected. The Respondents have further stated that so far as the Holding No. 193 is concerned, it contains 10 (ten) shops etc. and Rs. 1,100/- per month is collected from it. They have also stated that the rooms are let out to pilgrims on daily basis and a huge amount is collected not only from the pilgrims but also during marriage seasons. 5. In view of the aforementioned rival contentions of the parties, this Court is not in a position to adjudicate regard especially being had to the disputed questions of fact because in reply to the specific submission of the Respondents, learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Dharamshala, in fact, is not a charitable institution at all and that whatever amount is collected is used exclusively for the maintenance and up-keep of the Dharamshala and therefore, it cannot be brought within the definition of a commercial institution. 6. 6. However, be that as it may, this appears to be a matter involving disputed question of fact and therefore no relief can be granted to the Petitioner in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, it goes without saying that if the Petitioner moves the Government in accordance with the provisions of the Act for exemption and files such an application before the Secretary of the concerned department within a period of two weeks from today then the same shall be considered on its own merit and disposed off as expeditiously as possible. 7. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed off.